


A Query into the Subject of Nations

by natcat5



Category: Hetalia: Axis Powers
Genre: Essay, Gen, Historical Hetalia, Nations are known
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2015-08-03
Updated: 2015-08-03
Packaged: 2018-04-12 19:01:47
Rating: Teen And Up Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 1
Words: 1,712
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/4491114
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/natcat5/pseuds/natcat5
Summary: <blockquote class="userstuff">
              <p>Nation: A large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory.</p><p>Nation: Referring to the anthropomorphic personifications of countries, special administrative regions within countries, micronations, regional territories with strong cultural independence, provinces, prefectures, and other nation-state subsets not yet identified.</p>
            </blockquote>





	A Query into the Subject of Nations

Oxford Dictionary has this to say on the subject of nations.

Nation:  _A large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory._

Nation:  _Referring to the anthropomorphic personifications of countries, special administrative regions within countries, micronations, regional territories with strong cultural independence, provinces, prefectures, and other nation-state subsets not yet identified._

The second definition is a fairly new one, and it has only been used in prominence for the past 50 or so years. Pre-World War One, the Nations, as we know the definition today, existed as a vague mythos that was shared through numerous cultures worldwide. They were different than the usual classical gods. The deities, spirits of the sun and the earth, used to explain phenomena that seemed to be an act of divinity. Placeholders for the answers that science would one day provide.

The Nations were not those kinds of gods.

The idea behind them was at once infuriatingly simple and mind-bogglingly complex. A personification of a country. An amalgamation of the cultures, traditions, languages, and history of a people, combined with characteristics of the geographic landscape that they inhabited. In the post World War One years, particularly during the Great Depression, it would be argued that economics and politics also played a hand in shaping Nations.

But the basic lore, the shared idea that stretches back as far as human memory, was that of gods who attached themselves to humans. Who shaped themselves in their image, and became the holders, the keepers of their history. Some paint them as martyrs, receptacles of the most painful parts of human memory. Others as omniscient benefactors, privy to past  _and_  future, and serving the people they claimed as their own. Some stated they were as helpless as humans against the horrors of the world, while others argued they had the ability to control the physical features of their land, and to affect the opinions and minds of their people.

But while mention of them was widespread, global, the Nations were still primarily seen as the product of legend, and mysticism. The rise of Christianity in Europe had a role in suppressing talk of any sort of god other than their own. Though the Nations as they were seen them did not claim any power over creation, or of life and death. They were never seen as gods above mortals, but rather, as gods for mortals.

Nonetheless, their place in stories diminished and their pantheons withered under Christian persecution. Claims that they were anything other than a pagan fantasy were few.

Early Modern Europe was what first began to change this. The rise of Court Life, of political intrigue, of _gossip_ , for lack of a better term, began to bring about the first inklings that there might be immortals living among us. The documented accusations against an Italian nobleman for witchcraft during the Reformation, based upon his miraculous recovery from an assassination attempt and suspiciously youthful appearance. The series of paintings of an Austrian baron, a new one created every time a Hapsburg Emperor was elected to the Holy Roman Empire. Twelve paintings in total, showing a man not changing a hair over the course of 259 years. The miraculous case in the French Revolution, of a beheaded lord being seen again, alive and head attached, hours after his supposed execution.

The level of cultural awareness seems to vary from place to place, and no one can be sure exactly when each country began to be aware of the existence of Nations on a more tangible level. Certainly, it seems likely that most if not all of Queen Elizabeth Tudor’s Royal Council, and the majority of her court, were aware of the fact that an unaging man was her closest confidant and likely lover. The lack of accusations of witchcraft against him, the lack of any sort of speculation as to the nature, identity, and right of this man to have such a relationship with the Queen of England, seems to imply that there was something vital that the court knew. Something they left unsaid.

Compare this to France, where ‘Lord Bonnefoy’ reappeared in court every twenty years, claiming to be the male heir of the previous Lord Bonnefoy. Lord Bonnefoys I, II, III, and onwards exist in French records with little fanfare, suggesting no one suspected he was anything but human. It was only with his beheading in 1793 that the claim began to be questioned, and it was then that the idea of a Nation living among them began to take hold.

Still, it is nearly impossible to accurately assess the presence of Nations in the consciousness of people prior to the 19th century. There are hints everywhere, in journals, court records, minutes from meetings of parliament, that seem to suggest that some people, though few, were aware.

Take for example, an excerpt from the writings of Sir Walter Raleigh, written after the discovery and naming of Virginia during the reign of Queen Elizabeth. A now famous passage states:

> _‘All the apologies in the world cannot seem to soothe my lady’s irritation at having left her favoured knight in the new world. If I had the authority to drag him back with us, I would have. As it is, I cannot begin to understand his reasons for staying; the child must have bewitched him._

> _But perhaps for a being such as he, a child of the same sort must seem a truly wondrous thing.’_

And nearly a century later, a journal entry from Charles II, shortly after he returned from exile on the continent and was crowned King of England states,

> _‘…One always must take talk of the country’s will with a modicum of restraint and good sense. It frequently veers into the insensible. But there is no question that the treatment I received from Lord Bonnefoy in France, and the treatment I receive from Sir Kirkland here in England seem to exemplify each country’s feelings towards monarchy.’_

It can be dismissed as coincidence that both Bonnefoy and Kirkland, names we now know to be used by England and France, were mentioned in the same document. But the language certainly seems to suggest that there were rumours around the both of them, and of an idea of a ‘country’s will’ that existed. The question is raised, however, of why Charles II of England was aware of Bonnefoy’s true identity, while the French court itself seemed to be oblivious.

It is probably inaccurate to say that the English had the most awareness of the existence of Nations, both their own and others. It is more likely that other countries were more adept at hiding it. Certainly not every Nation was as involved in political life as those of England and France. There is little mention of a Nation in Spain prior to the 1800s, however there is speculation that ‘That Shameful Fool,’ frequently mentioned by King Charles I, with varying degrees of exasperation, is the now identified personification of Spain. In the Nordics, particularly in Sweden and Finland, there is occasionally a passing remark about ‘The Advisor’, a vague term used to describe a man who offered advice to the King, but had no other station or name. In Greece there is mention of, loosely translated, ‘The Spokesperson for the Land’, which historians have largely agreed to be referring to the Nation.

Passing mentions and speculations aside, there is no definite acknowledgement of the existence of Nations in the Early Modern period. A thousand and one incidences, single sentences and corners of paintings that can be analyzed. But nothing that suggested there was widespread belief in anthropomorphic countries.

It is important to note of course, that the concept of the nation-state as we know it, With accepted borders, and rights within those borders, self-determination for all nations and a general disproval in meddling in the domestic affairs of others, did not exist prior to the 1648 Peace of Westphalia that ended the 30 Years’ War. It was a peace established by a diplomatic congress, was central to the foundation of international law, and caused a shift in the lore of the Nations as gods. The language from talking about the people and the land, to the  _Nation_. This distinction caused a change in the terminology. Calling them gods had always caused friction with the Christianity of Western European society. The term Country’s Will picked up considerably, as did other similar titles. Instead of the God of the Portuguese people, or the God of the Germanics, the existence of these beings became tied up in the idea of borders and nationality. Suddenly, a nomadic people were no longer worthy of calling themselves protected by an immortal being that held their history and culture.

The 30 Years’ War was devastating to the Holy Roman Empire on many counts, and some historians suggest that this idea of only anation-state needing a singular identity served to undermine it. The Holy Roman Empire could not, they argue, have its own Country’s Will if the Peace of Westphalia promised the 200 or so principalities and kingdoms within it their own self-determination, borders, and right to a Country’s Will of their own.

Whether or not the Holy Roman Empire itself had a Country’s Will is a widely debated issue. There is no mention of a man or woman who fits the way Nations are usually alluded to in any Holy Roman documents that have been preserved. And asking Nations today only clouds the waters more. Austria famously answered in the 1952 interview with BBC that ‘the Holy Roman Empire was never a man’, seemingly putting the matter to rest. Until less than a year later, France infuriatingly confounded an audience at Oxford University by saying, ‘You ask me if he ever lived? I say that he never died.’

Even today, the truth is a mystery.

While 1648 may have been a turning point in the mythos of Nations, it still did not mark the beginning of their public acceptance and acknowledgement. They would continue to exist only in passing. In poetry and ballads. In stories and speculations. They would not step out of legend and into the world- onto the battlefield, onto the political stage –until World War One.  

**Author's Note:**

> this was gonna be part of a thing but ehhhhh


End file.
